Good morning/day/afternoon/evening/etc,
Quick question for the learned military branch members of the list.
Could you give me some examples (more the merrier ;-) of what is
included in an ROE for a given force (beyond "don't shoot civilians"
and "do not fire unless fired upon" ;-), how they might be written
up, etc? I'm thinking primarily for DSII scenarios (company to
battalion level), but SGII (platoon/squad level) will be helpful
as well.
Tanks!
Mk
> Could you give me some examples (more the merrier ;-) of what is
There was a TV show on here about the training of UK Corporals to be
Sergeants. They had to do all kinds of stuff, plan, execute and lead platoon
attacks, be
AND THE EXAMPLE QUOTED WOULD BE B*******T TO ME TOO.
> --- Alan E Brain <aebrain@webone.com.au> wrote:
> One lesson was on ROE.
Wow...in US ROEs they would be shot at when they pulled the grenades. And if
they executed their attack and started to flee after, until they stopped
moving.
Why? If they have 1 grenade, they might have more.
US ROEs are not written by the UN and hence actually make a good deal of
sense.
> The ROE stated that they should NOT be shot at,
You only know it's a grenade not a stone when it goes off.
> And if they executed their
Depending on exact ROE, usually allowing them a few seconds to stop after a
command "HALT!" (or whatever the local language is) before firing. Or not.
This was what the first group did - warned em 3 times before opening up
- and
was mildly rebuked for it, by an officer using a very obviously faked
primary-school
manner.
Officer: "Corporal, why did your squad fire?"
Cpl A (consulting his "Peacekeeping in Kosovo for Dummies" plasticised ROE
sheet):
"They-were-actively-attacking-so-were-a-threat-so-by-rule-13B-we-were-al
lowed-to-fire-after-giving-three-warnings-SAH!"
Officer: "Can anyone tell me what they did wrong? Anyone? You, corporal.."
Cpl B: (consulting his plasticised "Janet And John Go To Kosovo" card)
"By-Rule-11-after-making-the-attack-they-were-no-longer-a-threat-so-were
-ineligible-targets-SAH!"
Officer: "Very Good."
The look on the faces of the squaddies being "trained" was priceless. While
remaining absolutely poker-faced, they managed to convey telepathically
the following:
"I'm on camera at the moment, trying not to bugger up my career.
Peacekeeping's F**ing dangerous. It's vital that we give the right impression
of restraint, and don't give the F***ing chattering classes any opportunity to
cut the MoD (UK Ministry of Defence) budget yet again. We know this is all
F**ing Ballocks. The officer teaching us knows its all F**ing Ballocks. We're
all desperately trying not to burst out laughing, and the officer is NOT
making it any easier by playing the F**ing Kindergarten Teacher, the Bastard.
Anyone who sees this
> >> In Australia, we call this "Bullsh*t".
No, you only know it's a stone when it _doesn't_ go off.
Being hit in the face by a rock isn't fun either, so stone throwers should be
discouraged. Letting them get away with it will encourage them to repeat it
("ha, we got away with it, let's do it again!"). Of course, while you're
giving lessons in applied evolution, you need to make your opponents look like
fools instead of martyrs, or at least make sure it looks like your shooting
was justified. Prudence would suggest having a grenade (soviet issue, pin
pulled, dud fuse) handy to drop on the ground near your position, just in case
someone
> At 10:13 PM -0500 4/2/02, Laserlight wrote:
People don't pull pins from rocks.
> > One lesson was on ROE.
[now drifting rapidly away from the original question]
> US ROEs are not written by the UN and hence actually
Fine. But can someone give me example ROEs?? Serious ones? Useable for DSII?
Without ranging far afield? Please?
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Dances With Rocks wrote:
> But can someone give me example ROEs?? Serious ones?
Too far afield? This group? Please...:>
OK, I ran "rules of engagement" thru Google; got a heap of movie pages (about
a badly done and horribly racist movie, apparently), some right wing frothing,
and maybe one useful link... the FAS has the US Joint Chief's "Standing Rules
of Engagement" at
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/dod/docs/jcsroe.htm
Skimming the FAS doc, there's lots of stuff about 'not escalating' and 'unit
self defense'; just those restrictions could make for an interesting
game of SG2 or DS2. Or FT, for that matter - give one person a task
force
& the mission of getting some high-value freighters out from under a
pair of smaller, mutually hostile groups. The 'neutral' player could have
enough firepower to smear both other players across the board, but
his/her
RoE prohibits anything but self defense & neutralization of immediate threats
to the ships he's protecting. You could run the same thing on the ground, too.
I also went to the US Army's Digital Library
(http://www.adtdl.army.mil/)
and ran "rules of engagement" thru their full text search; that got some
interesting looking hits.
For example, FM 90-29 is 'Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations';
one appendice discusses RoEs, and includes the disclaimer, "However, ROE are
usually based on national strategic and political considerations rather than
on tactical considerations." That sounds calculated to make the field
commander tear his hair out...
Check the ADTDL - run my search for yourself, and see what you come up
with. I find skimming the FMs and other stuff available there always provides
ideas for scenarios.
Here too! Don't assume that what is shown on TV has much connection with
reality though.
J.
> At 09:40 03/04/2002 +1000, you wrote:
Dr PJD Lambshead Head, Nematode Research Group Department of Zoology The
Natural History Museum London SW7 5BD, UK.
Tel +44 (0)20 7942 5032
Fax +44 (0)20 7942 5433
Having done a similar type course when I was in RAF they would have been valid
targets as soon as they posed a threat to human life, however the 'rule of
minimum force' then kicks in which says dont shoot them unless you can not
stop them in any other way, ie jump him before he gets the pin out, the
minimum force bit then gets very grey as it has a different interpretation for
every person and is not explicitly laid down, oh and the rules change
completely for war!!
Paul
> -----Original Message-----
Yes they kept telling us this as well, when is a gun a gun, it may be fake so
you cant shoot him till you know its a real gun and either you or your mate
are dead, but as before this is for non war situations
> >
Can you spot a pin at 20 feet in the dark from round a corner;)
> -----Original Message-----
are yes sorry, three warnings, wording depends on wether you are armed or not,
and even then the minimum force thing kicks in, and you have to be sure they
are a threat and not playing with water pistols. Basicly dont shoot unless
your dodging bullets and even then dont shoot if their are innocent people
behind the target but in the line of fire.
> -----Original Message-----
> At 09:40 3/04/02 +1000, you wrote:
The show Alan is referring to is "Battle Stripes" shown here on one of the
local commercial networks, but he is confusing it with another series "Future
War" shown here on the National Broadcaster (ABC), probably because
both shows filmed British Soldiers training to do the same/similar thing
in the same place, a training establishment in Wales.
The episode of the "Future War" in question was dealing with the issue of how
do soldiers trained to fight a war cope with the difficult transition to
"peace keeping" duties. This piece of film was used to illustrate the
difficulties that soldiers could face because their training is aimed at
warfighting, they are NOT police but they are being asked to do a policeman's
job. This was just one of many examples the documentary gave to
show how a soldiers instincts/training can lead to the wrong actions for
a peace keeper.
The main point of the episode was that you can NOT expect soldiers to be
peace keepers and that it would be much better to have men trained as
dedicated peace keepers, as it takes extensive training to make people into
soldiers in the first place and then even more to make these soldiers to
behave as peace keepers and even more again to get them back to battle ready
soldiers once their peace keeping stint is over. By asking them to do
both the governments/societies involved are endangering the soldiers and
the people they are supposed to be helping in the areas where they're
operating.
Other episodes of "Future War" dealt with high tech scenarios (the silver
bullet;)) and the dangers of urban fighting (they showed an exercise where
an American unit were clearing a multi-storey building and would have
taken something like 30 friendly fire casualties in the process if it had been
for real).
As for what we call Bullsh*t here in Oz, well that's a different matter
:)
Cheers
In a message dated 03/04/02 04:16:07 GMT Daylight Time,
> laserlight@quixnet.net writes:
> > >> In Australia, we call this "Bullsh*t".
Sorry for staying off topic, but...
Some of the ROE mentioned above sounds like it has its basis in lessons learnt
in N.Ireland.
In U.K. the courts and the law will not equate the force of a bullet as being
equal to that of a stone. Same as it will not consider it equal to a petrol
bomb.
And at night, in a built up area, with street lights throwing all sorts of odd
shadows it can be very hard to make out detail.
TRUE STORY- About a year ago a police patrol at night in Derry, N.I.,
saw a young male step around a corner ahead of them. He raised a long green
pipe up to his shoulder and appeared to take aim with it. The police, who were
in an armoured landrover, believed it was some type of LAW being pointed at
them. After a second or two of panick, and no explosion, they starburst from
their vehicle, took cover and challenged the male. It turned out that the
object was LAW shaped, but was a toy. Army technical staff who examined it
were able to identify exactly what it was a replica of. The police involed
were armed with MP5, G33, and pop gun side arms, and
could have put down considerable fire if necessary. However it had been
drilled into them, and the army working areas like this that they must be sure
what they are shooting at poses a threat to life.
And ths is why ROE exist, so the less intellectual of us don't gun down kids
who dont have the intelligence to understand that they are asking to be
removed from the gene pull.
"Sir, when he threw the stone at us, I thought I saw a spoon (the lever that
is thrown off when the grenade is thrown that allows the fuse to start
burning) seperate from what I beleived to be a grenade."
Remember, the scenario had the assailants in plain sight on a road, not hidden
around a corner "cooking off" the grenades.
> On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 06:15, Paul Owen wrote:
STONES, LAUNCHED BY SLINGS, ARE POTENTIALLY LETHAL PROJECTILES AND SLINGERS
SHOULD BE TREATED ACCORDINGLY.
STONES, BRICKS, ETC, thrown by hand or dropped from overhead are also
potentially lethal projectiles, and stone throwers should be treated
accordingly.
there is this bleeding heart misonception that sticks and stones are non
lethal in the hands of the "oppressed" when employed against modern infantry
or policemen.
right.
one of my best friend went 3 RVN tours without a scratch, only to have his
right knee destroyed by a brick thrown by a "peaceful protestor" in 1968.
Yea, but I still could'nt resist:)
[quoted original message omitted]
Roger that.
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2002 18:44:52 -0600 (CST) DAWGFACE47@webtv.net writes:
How about a simple set of black ops ROE's:
1. Don't get caught or seen. 2. Don't kill anyone you don't have to. 3. Make
sure you DO kill person X. 4. Don't leave any evidence linkiing your actions
to your government.
5. Don't expect any help if you f*%$& up on 1-4.
> From: Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com>
> Dances With Rocks wrote:
> > > One lesson was on ROE.
Cooked example: A bad comm situation where several units on different radio
grids form an adhoc group to squash an enemy special forces group that has
managed to appear in a rear area. To make matters worse, the units are coming
from several directions. To prevent friendly fire casualties (friendlies are
presumed to outnumber the small raiding party), not only will units only fire
after being fired upon, but they must first positively identify the target. It
is hoped that the radio net problem is fixed before contact is made, at which
point, new ROE's will be provided.
As I am not a soldier, this example may be even worse than the previous one,
without my knowing it.
> There was a TV show on here about the training of UK Corporals to be
> One lesson was on ROE.
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002 22:35:48 -0500 Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
writes:
> At 10:13 PM -0500 4/2/02, Laserlight wrote:
And a sling turns a dangerous rock into a lethal weapon. IMHO.
Gracias,
> >> In Australia, we call this "Bullsh*t".
Vietnam, USAF style, "Yes, you have a missile that can kill the enemy
"x"
miles away (well, in theory but that's another story) but you can't tngage
until you get Mk 1 eyeball verification." The navy guys with gunless aircraft
thought this sucked worse then the USAF guys did... fer sure.
Gracias,
> --- Brian Burger <yh728@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
> Too far afield? This group? Please... :>
Very well done and realistic movie...
> Skimming the FAS doc, there's lots of stuff about
> I also went to the US Army's Digital Library
ADTDL is apparently out tonight.
But I can say that ROE is highly variable.
The ROE in Kosovo was full of disclaimers. Their
favorite (used about a half-dozen times) is "If the
tactical situation permits." The first line is "Nothing in this ROE supercedes
the basic right to self defense."
In the situation we were in in Kosovo required discretion on the part of the
NCOs and officers
leading missions, and self-discipline on the part of
troops. If you slap them with a 16-page booklet that
stomps on their initiative, in accordance with some manual written by a
paperpusher or a UN beauracrat, they can't do their job.
Just ask the UN force in Bosnia.
I'll try to dig up a complete copy of the ROE from Kosovo for you.
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, John Atkinson wrote:
<shrug> Haven't seen it myself, not likely to. A number of the people who
mentioned it in webpages really didn't like it, for whatever reason, that's
all.
> > Skimming the FAS doc, there's lots of stuff about
That's the impression I got, too... not helpful to us non-military
wargamers, though.
> The ROE in Kosovo was full of disclaimers. Their
That's the opening clause in the Standing ROE that the FAS had, and in the
various sample real ROE on the ADTDL site. There's also, obviously, a lot of
lawyerly input into the things.
It's even worse than aviation regs... (I just started my Private Pilot's
license - the flying is awesome, ground school is cool but challenging.
Quick, what's the difference between Indicated, Calibrated & True
Airspeeds?)(Very short answer: in a light plane, usually less than 5knots
- but you'd better KNOW the differences...)
> In the situation we were in in Kosovo required
I'd think this is a given, esp. in peacekeeping situations.
The funny thing is, in a lot of the scenario ideas I'm batting around (and
some of the real life situations I've read about) if both sides behaved,
there isn't/wasn't a fight and/or interesting scenario. You want one
side to be behaving badly to have an interesting game, when you start fiddling
with actual ROE stuff!
> I'll try to dig up a complete copy of the ROE from
It's not online somewhere? (Too recent?)
I gather there's a short, 'flash card' version for everyone to have in their
pocket all the time; even that would be useful information for inventing ROEs
in games.
From: "Glenn M Wilson" <triphibious@juno.com>
> And a sling turns a dangerous rock into a lethal weapon. IMHO.
Having experimented with slings throwing reasonable-weight
projectiles ( half-bricks), I'd agree. I've seen small trees
Below are the Rules of Engagement from a "multi-national, peace keeping"
mission. I've sanitized them a bit. Please note - the typos and bad
grammar are _not_ mine!
These ROE are for a "peace keeping" mission. The peace keepers are not really
expected to use their weapons. ROE for a more beligerent mission would
obviously be quite different. I'd love to see the ROE for the US forces in
Afganistan. They're probably a bit different...
-Ted
MISSION Your mission is to stabilize and consolidate peace in <Far Off
Country>.
SELF DEFENSE a. You have the right to use force (including authorized weapons
as
necessary) in self-defense.
b. Use only the minimum force necessary to defend yourself.
GENERAL RULES a. Use the minimum force necessary to accomplish your mission.
b. Hostile forces/belligerents who want to surrender may be armed.
Disarm them and turn them over to your superiors. c. Treat everyone, including
civilians and detained hostile
forces/belligerents, humanely.
d. Collect and care for the wounded, whether friend or foe. e. Respect private
property, do not steal. Do not take "war trophies." f. Prevent and report all
suspected violations of the law of armed conflict to superiors.
CHALLENGING AND WARNING SHOTS a. If the situation permits, issue a challenge:
"Stop or I will fire!"
b. If the persons fails to halt, you may be allowed by the on-scene
commander or by standing orders to fire a warning shot.
OPENING FIRE You may open fire only, friendly forces or persons or property
under your protection are threatened with deadly forces.
THIS MEANS a. You may open fire against an individual who fires or aims his
weapon at you, friendly forces, or Persons with Designated Special Status
(PDSS) under your protection. b. You may open fire against an individual who
plants, throws, or prepares to throw an explosive or incendiary device at you
or Persons with Designated Special Status (PDSS) under your protection. c. You
may open fire against an individual who deliberately drives a vehicle at you
friendly forces, or Persons with Designated Special Status (PDSS) under your
protection. d. You may also fire against an individual who attempts to take
possession or friendly force weapon, ammunition, or property with PDSS and
there is no other way of avoiding this. e. You may use minimum forces,
including opening sfire, against an individual who unlawfully commit an act
which endangers life, or is likely to cause serious bodily harm, in
circumstances where there is no other way to prevent the act.
> --- Brian Burger <yh728@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
> > Very well done and realistic movie. . .
Something about Arabs acting like Arabs. See: Palestinians in the evening
news. Before Sept 11 that was considered "racist".
> The funny thing is, in a lot of the scenario ideas
Generally, the civvies are the ones acting badly... which is the point.
> > I'll try to dig up a complete copy of the ROE from
Operational ROEs for ongoing missions are not posted on the internet.
> I gather there's a short, 'flash card' version for
That's the ROE as briefed to troops on the ground. I can't find my flash card
right now.
> --- "nated@naxera.com" <nated@naxera.com> wrote:
> CHALLENGING AND WARNING SHOTS
The card includes this warning in the local language.
In Serbo-Croat, "Stani Illi Putsam" or something to
that effect.
> b. If the persons fails to halt, you may be allowed
Warning shots are currently not encouraged, considering the chance of hitting
and killing bystanders. We got told to shoot at center of mass if we had to
fire.